Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Just_a_fan wrote:
Lots of overtaking and still boring. In fact, I can't think of any form of racing more boring than ovals.
Hate to go off-topic but it called for it. I once disliked Nascar because, well simply I never watched a race, and never understood it. Now however I look forward to watching it as much as an F1 race. Ive come to understand the sport and its supprised me. There is a reason its hugley popular in America, and now reaching Europe, and its not because its boring.
To each their own. I've watched NASCAR races on the odd occasion they're shown in the UK and, to my eyes, they are boring.
Other people like NASCAR, great.
Suggesting that F1 should be like NASCAR is, to me at least, like suggesting that rugby should be like American football.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
pgj wrote:But if we are going to have artificial tyre limitations then why not say that each car has two sets each of four dry compounds per weekend? It would mean that the tyre supplier has exactly the same requirement for each GP. It would simplify the logistics and might encourage a bit of tyre gambling from the teams. Ruin a set of tyres and there is no second chance.
How about the tyre manufacturer produces one tyre type? Yep, just one. It'll be a bit hard for some circuits and a bit soft for others which means that the teams will need to vary their approach.
Ideally, the tyre should be slightly too hard, full stop. That would reduce some of the marbles off line and so open up alternative lines through corners. It would also reduce corner speeds (good in the name of safety if nothing else). And the good drivers would get more from the tyres and the less good would get less which would introduce variation in pace across the field.
Of course, this wouldn't suit the tyre manufacturer - the rules are as they are to suit Bridgestone. There's no glamour in just producing several thousand tyres of one type and busing them to the tracks.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Green Genes wrote:Would banning wings do it? Could a car that relied on the underbody for all its downforce follow the car ahead and get an actual tow instead of becoming slower?
Yes.
Geez, how do you know? You think a venturi is the ideal flow world? No it isn't; G.E are too sensitive and they are sensitive to mass flow decreases, precisely what happens with a relatively steady wake.
I wonder if people read posts..several posts about limiting DF without no sound scientific points to bring their points while i've already said what was the the wake structure parameters.
This is what makes those threads useless, everybody throws his opinion without even bothering to read the other's posts and construct a discussion based on the current subject of discussion...
That would be hell funny to see that in a real life..wouldn't happen anytime.
Green Genes wrote:Would banning wings do it? Could a car that relied on the underbody for all its downforce follow the car ahead and get an actual tow instead of becoming slower?
Depending on how the rules would define underbody... yes.
Reliant on a small, sharp sloped diffuser as is the case now, no.
Reliant on a larger, much more gradual underfloor curvature, yes - of course, the rules would need to allow the floor aero-centre to move significantly forward to near the car's c.g. position. They would also need to widen the rear track of the car infront, and construct the regulations to ensure greater flow between the rear wheels to minimise the wake along the car centreline near the ground plane.
Last edited by kilcoo316 on 22 Mar 2010, 21:20, edited 1 time in total.
kilcoo316 wrote:I could easily design a car that has half the downforce of current cars, yet totally screws up the wake for the car behind.
But I think such car would have such big drag that it was overtaken just because of the poor top speed.
Nah.
Do not confuse wake structure with high drag.
As Ogami has indicated, far too many in here are not considering the real problem, the characteristics of the wake, instead, they are assuming downforce = no overtaking.
How about reducing the length of the cars? if the max length were limited to 4m instead of 5m+ of today, it would take 20% less time (or distance) to overtake a car. I would try to encourage wheel to wheel challenges by making the front wings narrower and reducing its overhang (allowed length of car in front of the front wheel). I hope that would stop them from worrying about damaging their wings.
The tires are a really tough issue. Harder tires would reduce marbles, but also could last the whole race distance. Softer tires would need to be replaced more often and reduce the dependence on aero, allowing the cars to get closer.
I think the main problem is that with the current qualifying system fastest cars are already in front. Think of this: If they are 3 sec/lap faster than the slowest cars, it would take them ~40 laps without any tire change to even start lapping the back markers. And if the drivers don't make any mistakes, there will be zero overtaking, period. On the other hand if a fast car and a good driver does not start in front, that definitely makes the race exciting. Remember Button in last year's Brazil GP, when he had an electrifying race.
I am sad to say that, but some artificial shuffling of the starting grid might do the trick. May be some starting grid penalty tied to how many championship points you have or your standing in the championship. Something like the driver in 10th position in standings to back 1 grid position after qualifying, 9th, 2 positions, 8th 3 ... and finally the 1st goes back 10. I'm sure, we'll start seeing some fights to win races and score points.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan
Hey how about a computer program that randomly shuts down different cars at different times during a race for a period of 5 seconds or so...then the car will have to pull over and let a few cars through and then pass to get to its original position again. Then you'll have all the chaos and passing you want.
I'm serious people, this has got to be the most benign threads I've seen in a while. If you think that F1 is boring then stop watching. The fact that you're still obsessing over F1 even though you think its boring means that Bernie and Max may have a good thing going afer all.
Maybe I should start a new thread that reads "Are F1 fans a bunch of "know it all" whinos?"
Just watch the damn race this weekend and keep quiet. It'll be a nailbiter.
G-Rock wrote:Hey how about a computer program that randomly shuts down different cars at different times during a race for a period of 5 seconds or so...then the car will have to pull over and let a few cars through and then pass to get to its original position again. Then you'll have all the chaos and passing you want.
I'm serious people, this has got to be the most benign threads I've seen in a while. If you think that F1 is boring then stop watching. The fact that you're still obsessing over F1 even though you think its boring means that Bernie and Max may have a good thing going afer all.
Maybe I should start a new thread that reads "Are F1 fans a bunch of "know it all" whinos?"
Just watch the damn race this weekend and keep quiet. It'll be a nailbiter.
When parents realize that their child is using drugs, stealing money, selling things from the house, they try to get him back on track. That's what F1 fans are doing, they know how good F1 can be, because once it was, and they just want to help it get back in that state. Persistence is not the sign of current liking, but sign of care and hope that problems will be sorted out.
G-Rock wrote:Hey how about a computer program that randomly shuts down different cars at different times during a race for a period of 5 seconds or so...then the car will have to pull over and let a few cars through and then pass to get to its original position again. Then you'll have all the chaos and passing you want.
I'm serious people, this has got to be the most benign threads I've seen in a while. If you think that F1 is boring then stop watching. The fact that you're still obsessing over F1 even though you think its boring means that Bernie and Max may have a good thing going afer all.
Maybe I should start a new thread that reads "Are F1 fans a bunch of "know it all" whinos?"
Just watch the damn race this weekend and keep quiet. It'll be a nailbiter.
S'funny, I thought a similar thing t'other day. Random stop-go call-in for each car during the race. Just about as daft as some of the other ideas on here
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
Indy is looking at a KERS/HERS/AERS (Aerodynamic Energy Recovery System, I just made that up now) system for their cars. I am not sure how it works as the details are fuzzy/non-existent in the article in Race Tech, even though it seems like the wrong series as on ovals there is no braking, therefore no regeneration.
What they have come up with is some way for a car that is following another car to generate, maybe from the wake, heat, who knows. But it would be a small amount that could built up over a few laps of following closely, then used as a push to pass. The leading car of course would not be able to generate, so it would make better racing with more chances of passing, and strategies that re driver controlled for the most part.
If it takes 5 laps to build up enough power, you wouldn't want to challenge for the lead with 12 laps left, as the former leader will have enough time to get a charge and re-pass.
I don't know if this a herring or not.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Ogami musashi wrote:I wonder if people read posts..several posts about limiting DF without no sound scientific points to bring their points while i've already said what was the the wake structure parameters.
I initially thought about limiting DF as a way to free up the aero rules so that the cars could look different while maintaining the current cornering speeds and redirect the aero development towards the reduction of drag which is somewhat relevant outside F1. I never suggested it would magically create lots of overtaking, although it may help somewhat.
kilcoo316 wrote:As Ogami has indicated, far too many in here are not considering the real problem, the characteristics of the wake, instead, they are assuming downforce = no overtaking.
Wake wouldn't harm a car that doesn't rely on aero that much anyway.
outer_bongolia wrote:How about reducing the length of the cars? if the max length were limited to 4m instead of 5m+ of today, it would take 20% less time (or distance) to overtake a car. I would try to encourage wheel to wheel challenges by making the front wings narrower and reducing its overhang (allowed length of car in front of the front wheel). I hope that would stop them from worrying about damaging their wings.
I'd rather damage my front wing than perform aerobatic tricks after the tire to tire contact! (see here and here)
Many people here, and in other similar threads, have suggested fairly specific technical solutions to the problems of F1. Whilst most of these are interesting and might actually work. I think what Formula 1 really needs is a change in the fundamental philosophy of the regulations, rather than (relatively) minor technical details.
The fundamental problem of F1 regulations is that they directly specify (part of) the designs used to achieve performance or output criteria. For instance, you've got regulations stipulating fairly specific dimensions, engine configurations, component placements etc. What the regulations should really do is to specify the desired level of output, without specifying the design used to get there. For example, you could have something like this: "downfoce/drag ratio must not R", where R is a number. This way, teams are free to design their vehicles as long as they adhere to this rule. Of course, the downside to this approach is that it is much more dynamic in nature so ensuring compliance with the rules will be more expensive.
